Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: A More-Better Nothing

Expand Messages
  • Jim
    Thanks for that, Wil, I ll put Krauss s book on my reading list. The poor old vacuum - no longer even a nothing! You can t get much lower than that. Jim
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 30, 2013
      Thanks for that, Wil, I'll put Krauss's book on my reading list.

      The poor old vacuum - no longer even a nothing! You can't get much lower than that.

      Jim


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > Jim,
      >
      > Ironically enough, I recommend Lawrence Krauss' book, A Universe from Nothing, or one of many YiouTube Videos by him on the subject (but the book is better), that explains just that: how the old notion of vacuum is wrong. Nothing, in that sense, "happens", as it were.
      >
      >
      >
      > Wil
    • fictiveparrot
      ... I think vacuum suggests less than nothing, which is why I suggested that I would think nothing is rest--without energy. Vacuum seems more like a black
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 31, 2013
        > In terms of physics, I would call an area
        > of space with nothing in it a vacuum.

        I think vacuum suggests less than nothing, which is why I suggested that I would think nothing is rest--without energy. Vacuum seems more like a black hole, which I believe is the opposite of something, anti-matter, to some extent. I don't see nothing like in my model.

        > I cannot see how anything – even tiny sub-atomic
        > particles – could be produced out of a vacuum.

        Well, I am not exactly sure home they make salt into those nice little crystals, but I am sure someone does. I don't know how to use machine language, but essentially I use it daily. I don't know if gawd exists or not, but I am certainly not going to base that determination on my lack of understanding. But it is also relatively easy to think of gawd.

        If nothing is REST, and not a vacuum, you might get something and its opposite from that. I don't know that I can define how any more than I can help you make salt. If you want instructions you have to read the package.

        > If there was nothing but an infinite
        > vacuum before the big bang

        I think that would be incorrect. But its just an idea.

        > ...I am not a physicist.

        You are certainly claiming a lot of underlying physics by the whole declaration of the vacuum knowledge.

        Knott Gnitt
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.